Griefing & Piracy Solution Mega Thread
- Thread starter CMDR Dreamstate
- Start date
I suggested a posse once before, but a posse of Elite cops on amphetamines sounds even better. All over-engineered and with perfect pip management.... yikes!
I agree with what you said before, but getting a poll 100% correct and unbiased is never easy.
Personally I think it's too far.
I have a similar idea but it's all about contextualizing the behavior WITHOUT alienating the player base. To this end I think that the C&P needs to be balanced by the opportunity to actually carve out a career from the behavior.
Yes I agree that if someone 'homicides' then they get a sliding scale of punishment in the form of a bounty which gets escalated as the crimes are repeated. And toward the end of the scale they should be truly large BUT this should be contextualized by the 'career' of piracy and as such they should have the game mechanic that makes it a tenable gameplay aspect. By all means make their lives hard in high security sections of the galaxy where they have committed the crime, initially in the system and then as they get more notorious within the faction, and then factions. Make it so that when they take up the pirates life (yo ho) that they live the life of a civil outcast. They key thing in this is also as a Pirate they can no longer claim bounties so they can't just kill each other for profit.
Flipside though they should have access to pirate bases where they can obtain stolen equipment at cheaper prices (although not resellable in normal markets as you then get pinged for receiving stolen goods) and tech that temp cloaks their ship signature upon entering a system.
The key to the game is to make behavior part of gameplay so that it makes sense in the universe and so people like the Smiling Fluffy Ducks, or whatever their names are, are ACTUALLY playing the game and not just 'playing' the game.
I have a similar idea but it's all about contextualizing the behavior WITHOUT alienating the player base. To this end I think that the C&P needs to be balanced by the opportunity to actually carve out a career from the behavior.
Yes I agree that if someone 'homicides' then they get a sliding scale of punishment in the form of a bounty which gets escalated as the crimes are repeated. And toward the end of the scale they should be truly large BUT this should be contextualized by the 'career' of piracy and as such they should have the game mechanic that makes it a tenable gameplay aspect. By all means make their lives hard in high security sections of the galaxy where they have committed the crime, initially in the system and then as they get more notorious within the faction, and then factions. Make it so that when they take up the pirates life (yo ho) that they live the life of a civil outcast. They key thing in this is also as a Pirate they can no longer claim bounties so they can't just kill each other for profit.
Flipside though they should have access to pirate bases where they can obtain stolen equipment at cheaper prices (although not resellable in normal markets as you then get pinged for receiving stolen goods) and tech that temp cloaks their ship signature upon entering a system.
The key to the game is to make behavior part of gameplay so that it makes sense in the universe and so people like the Smiling Fluffy Ducks, or whatever their names are, are ACTUALLY playing the game and not just 'playing' the game.
Last edited:
Sorry but your solutions are a joke, as a pirate most of the things you trying to give us would only dumb down the piracy....
Also if someone refuses to accept my piracy would i have to let them go because i cant kill then and reduce money of my wallet instantly???
I should have stooped reading when you said you support OPEN PVE...
Go back to your virus private group community!
Also if someone refuses to accept my piracy would i have to let them go because i cant kill then and reduce money of my wallet instantly???
I should have stooped reading when you said you support OPEN PVE...
Go back to your virus private group community!
Yes it is.
"Do you like my proposal? []Yes []No"
Don't put any further assumption about the motivations into a poll option, and present each option as neutrally as possible.
I too spent a lot of time thinking of creative ways to punish pointless murder, but in the end, all it really does it take from the game more than it gives.
Safe spaces are unhealthy. No matter the subject, be it the game world, personal problems, or society, safe spaces inhibit the growth and maturity. There's no point dragging it any further than the solo mode they have to hide in. If they want to sour their game, they should sour it on their own.
There are very few ways to really enhance this game with punishment.
For one, a more responsive and effective police response would help.
Secondly, removing consequences for colliding with SLFs.
Safe spaces are unhealthy. No matter the subject, be it the game world, personal problems, or society, safe spaces inhibit the growth and maturity. There's no point dragging it any further than the solo mode they have to hide in. If they want to sour their game, they should sour it on their own.
There are very few ways to really enhance this game with punishment.
For one, a more responsive and effective police response would help.
Secondly, removing consequences for colliding with SLFs.
Last edited:
This is generally a good idea. But regarding the exploit of one player letting another collect the bounty for "free money", shouldn't the bounty already be added to the rebuy cost, thus just moving the credits from one player to another, but not generating new ones?
I have skimmed through the Original Post and it seems well thought out and written (although I have not yet voted, as I have not enough information to make a valid choice). However, one thing that I think was missing was Power Play (if I am wrong I apologise for wasting your time). This, I feel, will need to be brought into the equation, as it is a valid reason for killing another Player. I have not joined any Faction (I should appear as neutral, so should not fall foul of a Power Play conflict), but other Players certainly have. How would you manage the situation when one Player pledged to a Faction encounters a Player from a hostile Faction? Power Play PvP is valid.
Yes,
Partialy,
Don't care ( null),
Some things are good but mostly are bad,
NO,
The OP put the pool as his decision is the best and we are only voting if its too much or too little... That's a known dirty stile of pools, by voting you are saying yes in between the lines, dirty move!
- - - Updated - - -
Id buy this idea even more if, the bounty removed 2x of the wanted target and pay only 1x.. what i mean:
Ganker 1 have 50K bounty.
Bhunter 2 kill hims!
BHunter 2 receives 50k
Ganker 1 pay his ship rebuy and more 100K
This means that if people use this as a money transfer they'd be losing half of it to the "bank", making it impossible to be used this way.
The rebuy screen questions rely on player honesty and would appear to be the best way for people to abuse the system.
For example: I am a naughty person, with a second account, attack an elite player in his Corvette in my mostly harmless stick sidewinder, he gets annoyed at me chipping away at his shields and I die a few seconds later.
Rebuy asks me if it was murder, I do yes - yes and the Elite corvette player has a massive debt?
That seems to me to be the best route for players who want to annoy other players to circumvent the fines you discuss.
Even if this decision was hidden and automated by the game, would it pick up on a sociopathic player fiddling the system to get high ranking players in expensive ships to suffer massive penalties for wiping out stock Sideys?
How would the game determine if it was a real newbie being attacked by a overlord over powered player, or the scenario I described above?
I do believe something along the lines of what you have duscussed is the best way forward, but more attention needs to be made on how devious people will try and bend the rules to their favour.
For example: I am a naughty person, with a second account, attack an elite player in his Corvette in my mostly harmless stick sidewinder, he gets annoyed at me chipping away at his shields and I die a few seconds later.
Rebuy asks me if it was murder, I do yes - yes and the Elite corvette player has a massive debt?
That seems to me to be the best route for players who want to annoy other players to circumvent the fines you discuss.
Even if this decision was hidden and automated by the game, would it pick up on a sociopathic player fiddling the system to get high ranking players in expensive ships to suffer massive penalties for wiping out stock Sideys?
How would the game determine if it was a real newbie being attacked by a overlord over powered player, or the scenario I described above?
I do believe something along the lines of what you have duscussed is the best way forward, but more attention needs to be made on how devious people will try and bend the rules to their favour.
You didn't specify, but I'm guessing a double no cancels the homicide flag. Not a big fan however of putting these decisions into players hands that potentially could result in financial liability for another. I don't trust other players that much. It opens more opportunity for exploits and griefing. Reps for taking the time to wrote this up though.
Some of it I like, some of it I really don't.
I really don't have time to explain which is which, but basically, in some cases your adding what seem like convoluted mechanics that completely ruin the games pacing which make me wonder how much you've been involved in piracy on either side of it. In some cases it seems like your trying to basically make it a "PVP flag" with another name, and a bunch of mechanics around it to justify it.
Some of it is nice though.
I voted the bottom option, but if there was one that fit my view more I wouldn't have.
There isn't one that says "I am for some of it, but against other parts"
I really don't have time to explain which is which, but basically, in some cases your adding what seem like convoluted mechanics that completely ruin the games pacing which make me wonder how much you've been involved in piracy on either side of it. In some cases it seems like your trying to basically make it a "PVP flag" with another name, and a bunch of mechanics around it to justify it.
Some of it is nice though.
I voted the bottom option, but if there was one that fit my view more I wouldn't have.
There isn't one that says "I am for some of it, but against other parts"
Too much of reading
(deploying hardpoints)
My solution is simplier:
High security systems/areas - in these areas security response should be
so hard as station responce. Griefing and pirating just impossible, all of proposed punishes my apply
Medium security - griefing and pirating possible but hard and smart, a part of punish my apply
low security - griefing and pirating possible, but with security response, lucrative routes or missions
anarchy - no security, your flying at your own risk, but very lucrative, trade routes or missions, up to 70% more than in high security, no punish for murder.
As a punish should not only by INEVITABLE ship destruction of a griefer or pirate, but also things like
- unevitable financial punish - the rebuy cost of victim.
- temporary revoke FSD permit to the system (+ hacking Engineer ofcourse)
- limited access to the some Engineers (some of them may be against criminal)
- limited access to outfit and shipyard
In a conclusion - there should be a safe areas and routes where players
can feel totally safe. Safety should not be regulated as PvP yes/no
switch, but by a in-game law and strong and fast response of security
forces.
Take a look from the bigger picture - a murder is not something wrong. You can see it as wrong because that was told You. There may be a different places in galaxy, where the murder could be something common, so there should no be punish for that. It my depend of local law, customs or morality of citizens.
All punishes should apply both for killing NPC or a Player.
Good suggestions, hope FD will notice about this and OP's brilliant thoughts.
Im sorry but your idea of justice seems insane. Althrough i think the crime&law system have to be reviewed, Dont you think maybe are you paing any frustation pvp experiencie with whole pvp comunity¿?
I´m a pirate, i like to live dangerously but i have no doubt that you are going to far with this.
I´m a pirate, i like to live dangerously but i have no doubt that you are going to far with this.
No, you can attack them as normal and break their hatch up with Hatch Breaker Limpets.
It's just if you kill them instead - then that is punishable.
Seem to be getting a lot of hate despite my edited disclaimer about the Homicide fines at the top the OP.
You'll also remember, in that case, that I stated my opinion about Open PvE was probably not the best solution; therefore, the rest of the thread continues.
I actually play in Open 75% of the time - the other times I'm in Solo because of mission switching at stations.
- - - Updated - - -
"If the result is “No” and "No", then it assumed that friendly fire could have been the cause – in which case, credits are automatically deposited back into the killer’s credit account."
And +1 to you sir for providing feedback
/tipshat.- - - Updated - - -
What stops friends from killing each other and collecting each others bounties?
Somewhere in the OP, that was the main reason behind the idea of not handing out bounties to players that kill Pirates or Homicide pilots - it would be too easy to achieve free bounty money from your buddies rather than randoms.
If no bounties are given for player vs player killing (no matter the circumstances), it cannot be abused.
Last edited:
I honestly don't think there is a 100% problem with it.
I provided an answer which is regarded as "for". The top one.
I provided a middle answer which is regarded as "neither" - not for or against.
I provided a final answer which is regarded as "against".
How is that a biased poll?
Okay, the wording may not suit you - but it is far from 100% biased - I think people looking at it can make a decision after a few seconds of thought, or just not vote at all.
One thing I think is being overlooked is what does FD want?
A lot of people think that "seal clubbing" is bad for gameplay (and I'm inclined to agree). But FD has made it clear that the psycho-killer is a valid player role, so it would seem that they're ok with some of it. The question is how much?
Personally I prefer the preventative route over the excessive punishment/bounty/fine route.
Basically in high-sec, it would be impossible to interdict anyone. There's so much system security that as soon as you interdict a non-wanted pilot, the local security sees that, swoops in and interdicts the interdictor, thereby breaking their tether.
Med-sec: interdictions are possible, but the system security will be pretty quick to drop into the instance.
Low-sec: it's gonna be a while, so you better be able to hold on your own.
no-sec/lawless: you're on your own pal.
This would of course be affected if a system is at war (even high-sec shouldn't be safe if they're at war)
Mission payouts, trading, bounties should all scale inversely to the level of security so there's some incentive for the risk.
Instead of crazy punishments, make some areas safe, and others not so much. Then it's up to the player to choose how much risk they wish to play with.
A lot of people think that "seal clubbing" is bad for gameplay (and I'm inclined to agree). But FD has made it clear that the psycho-killer is a valid player role, so it would seem that they're ok with some of it. The question is how much?
Personally I prefer the preventative route over the excessive punishment/bounty/fine route.
Basically in high-sec, it would be impossible to interdict anyone. There's so much system security that as soon as you interdict a non-wanted pilot, the local security sees that, swoops in and interdicts the interdictor, thereby breaking their tether.
Med-sec: interdictions are possible, but the system security will be pretty quick to drop into the instance.
Low-sec: it's gonna be a while, so you better be able to hold on your own.
no-sec/lawless: you're on your own pal.
This would of course be affected if a system is at war (even high-sec shouldn't be safe if they're at war)
Mission payouts, trading, bounties should all scale inversely to the level of security so there's some incentive for the risk.
Instead of crazy punishments, make some areas safe, and others not so much. Then it's up to the player to choose how much risk they wish to play with.